The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

[chestertonrules]

Can you explain more to me please. I am still confused. Also what about this part ;
a prefiguring of her own offering.155

Heb 7:

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.



By "her" offering they are referring to the Church, who, like Melchizedek offers bread and wine when we follow the instructions of Jesus.

 

[Tzaousios]

I have no idea what point you think you have made so I don't know how to comment.

Please feel free to elaborate.

Would you admit to me that you did know? I am not so sure...

I have seen you make that statement about the human will in multiple places. Although you have not defined what you mean by "free will," I posted that passage from Numbers to illustrate that the human will is not as free in the libertarian sense as you make it out to be, nor is it outside the purview of God's ultimate control.

What do you think the passage says about the will, then?

Numbers 22:20-22

20God came to Balaam at night and said to him, "If the men have come to call you, rise up and go with them; but only the word which I speak to you shall you do." 21So Balaam arose in the morning, and saddled his donkey and went with the leaders of Moab. 22But God was angry because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as an adversary against him.

Also, for the record, my post was in reponse to this one from Mamaz:

Yes, I know.

 

[chestertonrules]

Would you admit to me that you did know? I am not so sure...

I have seen you make that statement about the human will in multiple places. Although you have not defined what you mean by "free will," I posted that passage from Numbers to illustrate that the human will is not as free in the libertarian sense as you make it out to be, nor is it outside the purview of God's ultimate control.

What do you think the passage says about the will, then?

Numbers 22:20-22

20God came to Balaam at night and said to him, "If the men have come to call you, rise up and go with them; but only the word which I speak to you shall you do." 21So Balaam arose in the morning, and saddled his donkey and went with the leaders of Moab. 22But God was angry because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as an adversary against him.



Yes, I know.

God can intervene and impose his will on our lives periodically, but this does not negate our free will.

Cain chose to kill Abel, God did not make him kill Abel.

 

[Jig]

God can intervene and impose his will on our lives periodically, but this does not negate our free will.

Cain chose to kill Abel, God did not make him kill Abel.

So Cain was able to kill Abel because God enabled him to choose freely. Abel must have been unable to be inescapable. If Abel was smart he would have bought a bull to protect him from the inevitable.

 

[chestertonrules]

So Cain was able to kill Abel because God enabled him to choose freely. Abel must have been unable to be inescapable. If Abel was smart he would have bought a bull to protect him from the inevitable.

God enabled us to make choices.

Choose wisely!

 

[Jig]

God enabled us to make choices.

Choose wisely!

You do realize I was joking around. I was trying to use words that held the same sound as "Abel". able - unable - enable - a bull - etc.

 

[MamaZ]

Heb 7:

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.



By "her" offering they are referring to the Church, who, like Melchizedek offers bread and wine when we follow the instructions of Jesus.

I understand the Melchizedek priesthood. What I am not understanding is how you make this into a debate about the Eucharist. This is what I want explaination for. Thank you for the explaination about the her part.

 

[chestertonrules]

You do realize I was joking around. I was trying to use words that held the same sound as "Abel". able - unable - enable - a bull - etc.

Sorry, I'm a little dense sometimes. Very clever!

 

[chestertonrules]

I understand the Melchizedek priesthood. What I am not understanding is how you make this into a debate about the Eucharist. This is what I want explaination for. Thank you for the explaination about the her part.

The Melchizedek reference wasn't related to my point, so I wasn't actually brining it up. The point I was making in that post is that the Eucharist is considered a mystery beyond human understanding by the Catholic Church. Transubstantiation is an attempt to describe this mystery. The reference to Melchizedek just happened to be in the same paragraph in the catechism.

 

[98cwitr]

It appears from the historical evidence that the Catholic/Orthodox/Apostolic understanding of the Eucharist was held nearly unanimously by the early Church.

Those who denied this real presence were mentioned, but they were heretics who had questionable beliefs by any Christian standard and were often influenced by some form of gnosticism.

So, when was the first denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist proposed by a Christian?



Some quotes to consider:


Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again... Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Epistle to the Smyreans)

"Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God." (Epistle to the Philadelphians)


Justin Martyr, 150 AD "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus." (First Apology of Justin)



Irenaeus of Lyons, 190 AD "Christ has declared the cup... to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies Book V)

if it was real, we would be able to extract Christ's DNA from the wine drank and the bread. To date, I am unaware of any extraction of foreign DNA from someone partaking in the Lord's Supper. Do Catholics really believe the bread and wine literally turn into flesh and blood in their body? Isn't it figurative and a sign of remembrance?

 

[Aibrean]

Well Lutherans believe that the bread and wine keep their natural substance.

Why are you trying to put God in a box? Look at how Christ was conceived.

 

[chestertonrules]

if it was real, we would be able to extract Christ's DNA from the wine drank and the bread. To date, I am unaware of any extraction of foreign DNA from someone partaking in the Lord's Supper. Do Catholics really believe the bread and wine literally turn into flesh and blood in their body? Isn't it figurative and a sign of remembrance?

Yes it is literal. That's what Jesus said. We also believe that it is a mystery beyond human understanding.

Did you read the quotes from the early Church?

The belief that it is figurative is a recent departure in the Christian faith.

 

[Kristos]

if it was real, we would be able to extract Christ's DNA from the wine drank and the bread. To date, I am unaware of any extraction of foreign DNA from someone partaking in the Lord's Supper. Do Catholics really believe the bread and wine literally turn into flesh and blood in their body? Isn't it figurative and a sign of remembrance?

You make the false assumption that in order for something to be real it must be physical. The reality begins with the gathering, and not just the gather of anyone, but a gathering of those who have put on Christ through baptism. How do we put on Christ? I don't have any of His DNA in my body... How do we become the Body of Christ by gathering? We remain distinct and separate individuals... How do we participate in the glory and grace of God, when He is unknowable to us? The heavenly banquet is set, not figuratively but in reality. We cannot ascend to it but by the One who as already ascended and is seated at the right hand of the Father. The Eucharist is ascent, it is the eschatological fulfillment of the Incarnation. Sin is not figurative, and so salvation cannot be either. The reality of the Kingdom has been revealed - if you have never experienced it, I recommend you "come and see".

 

[98cwitr]

hahaha...wow you folks are something....

"We are the body of Christ" is a figurative statement, not a literal one...or do you believe we all are the literal body of Christ too?

If it literally turned into His blood and His flesh, we'd be able to collect His DNA and test it against the Shroud of Turin or something. Believing that it's literal is like believing the world is flat, the Bible does not suggest that it's literal and I don't see why someone would take it as such.

http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/thelastsupper.htm

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes it is literal. That's what Jesus said. We also believe that it is a mystery beyond human understanding.

Did you read the quotes from the early Church?

The belief that it is figurative is a recent departure in the Christian faith.

They of course had their own interpretations.
One of these decades, I may read thru them

Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better? - Christian Forums
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Sacred Mystery

 

[98cwitr]

Christ says that where there are two or three believers there He will be as well. Therefore, this is breadth of my logic regarding the Eucharist as well.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Christ says that where there are two or three believers there He will be as well. Therefore, this is breadth of my logic regarding the Eucharist as well.

I suppose that depends on one's definition of "believers"

http://www.christianforums.com/t7368885-21/

*snip*

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

^^^^^^^Ok...I don't care who ya are....that's funny!!!!!!

 

[98cwitr]

I suppose that depends on one's definition of "believers"

http://www.christianforums.com/t7368885-21/

*snip*

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

roffle, I guess you have a point there